Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper was well written. The research of carbon cycling is an important issue for the environment. I think that the topic of this paper is interesting for readers. The experimental result, discussion, and design are reasonable, complete, clear, comprehensive. Therefore, I recommend this paper can be accepted for publication in Sustainability without revision. 

Author Response

Thank you for recommending our article for publication in Sustainability without revision. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The prepared publication is an interesting research material in LCA analysis. However, in my opinion, extending the analysis with other indicators, such as the use of utility energy, in particular for heating and cooling the building, would provide more meaningful research material. And the differences between buildings could be significant. In my opinion, the publication is suitable for publication in a scientific journal - I am attaching a .PDF file with my comments.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached the response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

What is provided is an embodied carbon life cycle assessment. It is unclear what is new or novel about this approach. What has been achieved that has not been achieved before ? What would be valuable is suggested improvements to the process and a statement of the limitation of the assessment process. Greater consideration is needed on the contribution to knowledge provided by the paper.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1) Multiple citations in relation to one sentence; I ask authors to use max. two literature items into one sentence/statement. Using multiple items makes it difficult for the reader to know what comes from a specific article. Examples:  [1–3]. [4–6]. [5, 7-9].   [9,14-16]. 

2) Line 85: correct: "ity.    The f"

3) Line 77: "by a current UK supermarket is used. " - please justify your choice in more detail

4) " The buildings are approved construction methods of a current UK supermarket." -What exactly do the authors mean? Please expand on this idea more.

5) Autodesk® Revit® Building - please provide program specifications

6) 2. Materials and Methods - Steel,  Cladding panel,  Concrete slab,  Poroton brick e.t.c. - authors must include the specifications of these materials, physical parameters, etc. in their work.

7) Table 7. Building material quantity and weight. - it is not clearly written in the work what is the difference between B1, B2, B3 and B4; why are there such a difference? What do the authors want to prove with this in article?

Author Response

Please find attached the response to the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in current form

Author Response

Thank you very much.